REA Many Uncut Sheets

[insidethewrapper]

Wow, check out a the REA Auction. A lot of uncut sheets from the '60's and '70s ! Some proofs! Are there many uncut sheet collectors ?

[whitehse]

I am aware of one uncut sheet collector that used to post on the PSA boards who seemed to have an incredible collection of uncut sheets from several different decades. I am not sure if he ever made his way over to these boards but his collection seemed to be unmatched. I cannot help but wonder if perhaps these sheets in the REA auction may be his collection.

For the life of me I cannot remember his name but I am confident I will remember it eventually. It's hell to get old.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

Wow, check out a the REA Auction. A lot of uncut sheets from the '60's and '70s ! Some proofs! Are there many uncut sheet collectors ?

I have a few(16) of them. All but the 132 card 1989 Fleer all Bill Ripken Black Box version are error sheets. I know a few other members that have full sheets in their collection.

[quitcrab]

I have one full sheet in my collection. I like the way they display. I don’t particularly like proof sheets or sheets that are missing color or text.

[mrmopar]

I did a trade with a guy named Craig a year or two ago who seemed to have a lot of proof and sheet stuff. Does that sound familiar?

Originally Posted by whitehse

I am aware of one uncut sheet collector that used to post on the PSA boards who seemed to have an incredible collection of uncut sheets from several different decades. I am not sure if he ever made his way over to these boards but his collection seemed to be unmatched. I cannot help but wonder if perhaps these sheets in the REA auction may be his collection.

For the life of me I cannot remember his name but I am confident I will remember it eventually. It's hell to get old.

[Griffins]

I have a few dozen, from 1908 to 1971. They are tough to store though, and unless you have a lot of wall space even tougher to display.
I'm working on a few sets in uncut form, if anyone has any '41 Playballs in either sheets or strips I'm very interested.

[JollyElm]

1965 Topps Uncut Sheet1 Fifth:Sixth.jpg

Is this known already?

In looking at the 1965 Topps uncut sheet from the auction (above), I noticed that there were only three Roger Craig cards, whereas others seemed to appear four times across the sheet(s). So I started to examine the entire sheet and found out that a whole bunch of cards only occur three times.

Among them are:
1965 Topps #411 Roger Craig
1965 Topps #396 Frank Bertaina
1965 Topps #428 Bob Shaw
1965 Topps #383 Felipe Alou
1965 Topps #420 Larry Jackson
1965 Topps #404 Stan Williams
1965 Topps #405 John Roseboro
1965 Topps #419 Ruben Amaro
1965 Topps #382 J C Martin
1965 Topps #372 Clay Dalyrmple
1965 Topps #410 Luis Aparicio
1965 Topps #406 Ralph Terry
1965 Topps #386 Cubs Rookies
1965 Topps #398 Reds Rookies
1965 Topps #422 Aubrey Gatewood
1965 Topps #399 Ray Herbert
1965 Topps #436 Don Elston
1965 Topps #378 Chuck Estrada

...and then I stopped checking.

Are the cards listed (as well as the others I didn't get to) considered SP's?? If this full, two-sided sheet is official (and the only one used), then the quantity of some cards printed was only 75% of the number printed of other cards (it's late, so I'm sure that was poor grammar, but I digress)...unless there was also a second version of the sheet that included more of some cards and less of others to balance out the totals??

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Attachment 373969

Is this known already?

In looking at the 1965 Topps uncut sheet from the auction (above), I noticed that there were only three Roger Craig cards, whereas others seemed to appear four times across the sheet(s). So I started to examine the entire sheet and found out that a whole bunch of cards only occur three times.

Among them are:
1965 Topps #411 Roger Craig
1965 Topps #396 Frank Bertaina
1965 Topps #428 Bob Shaw
1965 Topps #383 Felipe Alou
1965 Topps #420 Larry Jackson
1965 Topps #404 Stan Williams
1965 Topps #405 John Roseboro
1965 Topps #419 Ruben Amaro
1965 Topps #382 J C Martin
1965 Topps #372 Clay Dalyrmple
1965 Topps #410 Luis Aparicio
1965 Topps #406 Ralph Terry
1965 Topps #386 Cubs Rookies
1965 Topps #398 Reds Rookies
1965 Topps #422 Aubrey Gatewood
1965 Topps #399 Ray Herbert
1965 Topps #436 Don Elston
1965 Topps #378 Chuck Estrada

...and then I stopped checking.

Are the cards listed (as well as the others I didn't get to) considered SP's?? If this full, two-sided sheet is official (and the only one used), then the quantity of some cards printed was only 75% of the number printed of other cards (it's late, so I'm sure that was poor grammar, but I digress)...unless there was also a second version of the sheet that included more of some cards and less of others to balance out the totals??

This is standard/known for 77 card series like 1965 series 5 (series 5 CL printed with 4th series too).

77 card series have 3 rows printed 4 times across the 264 card full sheet and then 4 different rows printed 3 times.

John

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

This is standard/known for 77 card series like 1965 series 5 (series 5 CL printed with 4th series too).

77 card series have 3 rows printed 4 times across the 264 card full sheet and then 4 different rows printed 3 times.

John

Yes, I understand that. But is this the 'only' full sheet used? Or was there a sister sheet with a reconfigured 4/3 split to even out the numbers of each card produced? If that isn't the case, then some of these cards would be/should be considered short prints, because there were 25% less of them printed as compared to the other cards in the series.

[jmoran19]

I doubt highly there is a different 264 card sheet. I had saved years ago a bunch of panels from this series and they matched perfectly to both sides of this sheet. Also Topps was cheap, configuring and printing a different layout cost time and $

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

I doubt highly there is a different 264 card sheet. I had saved years ago a bunch of panels from this series and they matched perfectly to both sides of this sheet. Also Topps was cheap, configuring and printing a different layout cost time and $

Thanks for your continued insight! It's weird that I have never heard of short prints in the fifth(?) series of 1965. Somebody must have brought this up long ago, no?? It's not earth shattering news, but it's surely something.

[jmoran19]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Thanks for your continued insight! It's weird that I have never heard of short prints in the fifth(?) series of 1965. Somebody must have brought this up long ago, no?? It's not earth shattering news, but it's surely something.

Right or wrong most people consider SP’s a 50% or less situation but where does the line change to DP’s and not SP’s? Example 109/110 card series have 4 rows printed 3 times and then 6 rows printed twice but I see the 44 cards printed 3 times called DP’s, usually due to people only seening the 132 card half sheet, not the full 264 card sheet. Should the 66 cards printed 33% less really be SP’s?

[JollyElm]

I think I was always under the impression that all cards were produced in (relatively) the same amounts except for the dreaded SP's primarily found in the higher series. This revelation, although not really very significant, adds a new piece to the puzzle.

[rlorenz]

I was hoping for a 1959 uncut sheet...but alas nothing....its one of the last thing i need for the Complete Complete Master Collection for 59 :-P

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I think I was always under the impression that all cards were produced in (relatively) the same amounts except for the dreaded SP's primarily found in the higher series. This revelation, although not really very significant, adds a new piece to the puzzle.

Some of the early series over the years are also printed in lesser quantities than other cards in the same set. Hard to quantify without more sheets but I would wager there are easier and tougher cards in many of the pre-1973 series over the years

Rich

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Some of the early series over the years are also printed in lesser quantities than other cards in the same set. Hard to quantify without more sheets but I would wager there are easier and tougher cards in many of the pre-1973 series over the years

Rich

Just to be clear, when talking about relatively equal quantities, I was only referring to cards in the same series/on the same print sheets, not across the entire year's set.

Good luck to you and your better half!!!

[Griffins]

Originally Posted by rlorenz

I was hoping for a 1959 uncut sheet...but alas nothing....its one of the last thing i need for the Complete Complete Master Collection for 59 :-P

Mike Gidwitz has one on his site for sale.

http://www.preciouspaper.com/Browse.aspx?ID=7

[rlorenz]

True yes he does but 3 k for a 33 card uncut...is really really steep considering the last auction sold at 930 for 54 and a 44 card panel last summer and the prices have not gone up they have gone down sadly. I would expect to be at or below that 930 mark but its worth asking

[rats60]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I think I was always under the impression that all cards were produced in (relatively) the same amounts except for the dreaded SP's primarily found in the higher series. This revelation, although not really very significant, adds a new piece to the puzzle.

What made some of the cards harder was being in a short run high series like 1967. Having a shortage for all the cards in a series makes those printed in lesser quantities in more demand. Then you had the Seaver row only printed 2 times vs. 3 or 4 for the other rows. For lower series there would be an excess of all the cards, so having 3 or 4 on a sheet wouldn't matter. People collecting sets would be able to find all of those easily, but would be chasing after the shorter printed high numbers.

[Kevvyg1026]

If the relative print quantity was high, then the 3:4 ratio is probably not noted as SPs even though some cards were printed at a lower frequency than others in the same sheet. In 1965, apparently Topps printed a lot of cards of Series 5, so the cards printed at 3/4 that of others are not noted as SPs. The high series (series 7) and semi-highs (series 6) most likely used a similar print pattern as that of series 5, but SPs are noted in series 7 simply because the quantity printed was much lower.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevvyg1026

If the relative print quantity was high, then the 3:4 ratio is probably not noted as SPs even though some cards were printed at a lower frequency than others in the same sheet. In 1965, apparently Topps printed a lot of cards of Series 5, so the cards printed at 3/4 that of others are not noted as SPs. The high series (series 7) and semi-highs (series 6) most likely used a similar print pattern as that of series 5, but SPs are noted in series 7 simply because the quantity printed was much lower.

Three-quarters of a very large number is still a large number. I had not thought of it in those terms.